AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

The recorded data paints a lopsided picture: the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins all eleven head-to-head benchmarks against the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755, including a 7.5% edge in single-threaded work despite fielding a higher thread count for parallel loads. Both chips sit in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, yet they get there in very different ways, with Intel leveraging 24 cores on a mobile power envelope and AMD relying on a compact 8-core Zen 5 design targeted at server and workstation duty.

Where Each One Wins

Strictly speaking, the data shows the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus winning everywhere: winsA stands at 11, winsB at 0. That said, the margin varies enormously by workload, and the narrow gaps reveal where the Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 stays competitive.

The Intel chip dominates anything that scales with threads and core count. Floating point math is the starkest example: 201,773 versus 81,456, a 147.7% advantage. Prime number search shows a 163.5% gap (519 versus 197), and encryption a 121.5% gap (50,008 versus 22,577). Multi-threaded throughput overall lands 53.5% in Intel's favor (59,439 versus 38,721), with physics at 50.1% and string sorting at 62.8%.

Where the Ryzen holds ground is responsiveness-oriented, lightly threaded work. Its single-thread score of 4,606 is only 7.5% behind Intel's 4,951. Integer math, at 122,411 versus 164,839, is Intel's narrowest multi-threaded win at 34.7%. So the practical split: heavy rendering, computation, and throughput workloads favor Intel decisively, while tasks bound to one or two fast threads keep the two chips close.

Architecture Differences

These are fundamentally different designs. The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is an Arrow Lake-HX Refresh mobile processor on TSMC's 3 nm process, with 24 cores and 24 threads, a 2.70 base and 5.50 boost clock, and a 55 W TDP. It packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die, carries 3 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3, and includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EUs as integrated graphics. It uses the Intel BGA 2114 socket, supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus at 102.4 GB/s, offers PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, supports ECC, and has an unlocked multiplier.

The Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 is a Granite Ridge part built on TSMC's 4 nm process, with 8 cores and 16 threads, a 3.80 base and 5.40 boost clock, and a 120 W TDP. Its die is far smaller at 70.6 mm² with 8,315 million transistors, it carries 1 MB of L2 per core and 32 MB of shared L3, and it uses AMD Socket AM5. Memory support is also dual-channel DDR5, but bandwidth is lower at 89.6 GB/s. It offers more CPU PCIe lanes than Intel, Gen 5 with 24 lanes, also supports ECC, and ships with Radeon integrated graphics. Its multiplier is locked, and its market segment is listed as server/workstation rather than mobile.

The key structural contrast: Intel triples the core count (24 versus 8) while running at less than half the TDP (55 W versus 120 W), which explains why its multi-threaded results tower over AMD's while its per-thread advantage remains modest.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear call for throughput buyers: the Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus. It wins every recorded test, its average benchmark score of 79,574 exceeds the Ryzen's 75,738, and its multi-threaded margin of 53.5% is decisive for rendering, compilation, encryption, and similar parallel workloads. Its nearest rivals in the database, the Core i9-14900KF (0.3%), Core i9-14900K (0.6%), EPYC 7413 (-0.6%), and Xeon w5-2565X (-1.4%), are all desktop or workstation flagships, underscoring how much performance Intel has fit into a 55 W mobile envelope.

The Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 makes sense where its specific profile fits. Its rival cluster is nearly score-identical, sitting within 0.3% of the Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, Ryzen 9 9950X3D, EPYC 8224P, and Core Ultra 9 285, indicating a tight, well-defined performance band. It offers the higher base clock (3.80 versus 2.70), four additional PCIe Gen 5 CPU lanes, ECC support, and a standard AM5 socket rather than a soldered BGA package. For workloads that are lightly threaded or platform-constrained rather than throughput-hungry, the 7.5% single-thread gap is small. For anything multi-threaded, the database results favor Intel without qualification.

FAQ

Q: Does either CPU win a head-to-head benchmark against the other?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins all eleven recorded head-to-head tests. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 wins none.

Q: How close are the two in single-threaded performance?

A: Intel scores 4,951 in PassMark single-thread versus 4,606 for AMD, a 7.5% gap. This is the narrowest margin between them.

Q: Which has more cores and threads?

A: Intel: 24 cores and 24 threads. AMD: 8 cores and 16 threads. Intel's 24 physical cores drive its large multi-threaded leads.

Q: Which CPU uses less power according to the database?

A: The Intel part, with a 55 W TDP compared to 120 W for the Ryzen, despite delivering substantially higher multi-threaded performance.

Q: Do both support ECC memory and PCIe Gen 5?

A: Yes. Both support ECC and PCIe Gen 5, though Intel provides 20 CPU lanes while AMD provides 24.

Q: Can either CPU be overclocked?

A: The Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The Ryzen 7 PRO 9755's multiplier is locked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Walking through the recorded results, the largest Intel wins come in compute-heavy tests. PassMark find prime numbers: 519 versus 197, a 163.5% margin. Floating point math: 201,773 versus 81,456, Intel ahead by 147.7%. Data encryption: 50,008 versus 22,577, a 121.5% difference. These three tests scale best with core count and confirm that the 24-core design converts its parallelism into raw throughput.

Mid-tier results still favor Intel heavily. Random string sorting: 80,327 versus 49,326, a 62.8% gap. Multi-thread overall: 59,439 versus 38,721, up 53.5%. Physics: 3,387 versus 2,257, up 50.1%. Data compression: 658,724 versus 467,988, up 40.8%. Integer math: 164,839 versus 122,411, up 34.7%. Extended instructions: 51,290 versus 38,976, up 31.6%.

The closest contest is single-thread performance, 4,951 versus 4,606, a 7.5% Intel edge. That gap is small enough that interactive, lightly threaded applications would feel similar on both machines, which is the Ryzen's strongest showing in the dataset.

Intel's Cinebench results, recorded for this chip only, reinforce the picture: 5,981 multi-core in R15, 21,198 in R20, and 39,684 in R23, with single-core scores of 340, 2,992, and 2,356 respectively. No corresponding Cinebench entries exist for the Ryzen in the database, so they are excluded from the head-to-head tally.

Specification Differences

The chips diverge on nearly every specification field:

• Cores/Threads: 24/24 (Intel) versus 8/16 (AMD)
• Base/Boost Clock: 2.70/5.50 GHz (Intel) versus 3.80/5.40 GHz (Intel boosts higher; AMD bases higher)
• TDP: 55 W (Intel) versus 120 W (AMD)
• Process Node: 3 nm (Intel) versus 4 nm (AMD), both TSMC
• Transistors / Die Size: 17,800 million on 243 mm² (Intel) versus 8,315 million on 70.6 mm² (AMD)
• Cache: 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, 36 MB L3 (Intel) versus 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, 32 MB L3 (AMD)
• Memory Bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s (Intel) versus 89.6 GB/s (AMD), both dual-channel DDR5
• PCIe: Gen 5, 20 CPU lanes (Intel) versus Gen 5, 24 CPU lanes (AMD)
• Integrated Graphics: Arc Xe-LPG 64EU (Intel) versus Radeon Graphics (AMD)
• Socket: Intel BGA 2114 versus AMD Socket AM5
• Market Segment: Mobile (Intel) versus Server/Workstation (AMD)
• Codename: Arrow Lake-HX Refresh versus Granite Ridge (Zen 5)
• Multiplier: Unlocked (Intel) versus locked (AMD)
• Part Number: SADSS versus 100-000001969
• Release Date: Intel recorded on March 16, 2026; AMD on June 29, 2026

Both share the 95th percentile ranking versus all CPUs, Active production status, DDR5 support, ECC support, and dual-channel memory buses.